In a significant win for fairness and due process, the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) recently voted to upgrade a former Sailor’s discharge from “Other Than Honorable” to “Honorable.” The case arose from an allegation of violent sexual assault that, despite being investigated by NCIS and rejected by a prosecutor for lack of evidence, led to the Sailor’s involuntary separation through an administrative board—without charges, without nonjudicial punishment, and without a meaningful opportunity to clear his name.
The NDRB ultimately concluded that the Sailor’s “command unfairly and improperly denied the Applicant an appropriate forum to rebut the serious allegations against him.” He was “never charged, and never given the option for a nonjudicial punishment or trial by Courts-Martial,” and as a result was “denied reasonable access to due process and denied an opportunity to exonerate himself.” The Board called this “particularly inequitable considering the seriousness of the allegations” and ruled that “a change in the characterization of service to Honorable was appropriate.”
The Sailor had served more than four years with distinction. His record included multiple awards—such as the Navy "E" Ribbon, the Good Conduct Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal—and an overall trait average of 3.33. He had no retention warnings, no NJPs, and consistently received high praise from his supervisors, one of whom described him as “a model sailor who inspires success.” Another called him a “leading seaman” whose work ethic and mentorship set the tone for junior Sailors.
Despite these qualifications, his command opted to process him through an administrative separation board rather than pursue any judicial or nonjudicial accountability. During that board, serious procedural irregularities occurred. His defense counsel submitted a detailed letter of deficiency (LOD) noting that the recorder directed the complaining witness not to answer cross-examination questions, refused to excuse a biased board member with personal experience of sexual assault, and withheld critical Brady and Giglio material. Ultimately, the board’s decision—based on an accusation made nearly a year after a consensual encounter—contradicted the weight of the evidence and ignored the Sailor’s unblemished service history.
At the hearing, we drew attention to United States v. Hirst, a 2024 Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision, in which the court overturned a wrongful conviction for drug use after identifying serious chain-of-custody failures and weighing powerful character evidence. In that case, the court quoted Maya Angelou’s famous words: “Believe people when they show you who they are.” The message is clear—when a service member has demonstrated professionalism, integrity, and selfless service time and time again, that should not be cast aside lightly based on unsubstantiated claims. The Sailor in this case showed the Navy exactly who he was—through integrity, leadership, and consistent performance. The Board saw that, and chose to correct the injustice.
In its final decision, the NDRB emphasized that it “did not seek to re-adjudicate the Applicant's administrative separation board results,” but nevertheless found that “the resulting discharge characterization” was inequitable due to the lack of due process and the absence of any substantiated misconduct. The narrative reason for separation was changed to “Secretarial Authority” and the separation code updated to “JFF1” (a neutral code). The Honorable discharge will restore critical benefits—including the GI Bill—and clear the service member’s record for future employment and education opportunities.
This case reflects a growing concern about procedural shortcuts and overcorrections in today’s military justice climate. Allegations must be taken seriously—but so must the rights of the accused. For example, the removal of the “severe and pervasive” standard from some civilian definitions of harassment has led to confusion and inconsistency, but military standards under DoDI 1332.14 and service-specific regulations remain rooted in fundamental due process and evidentiary thresholds. These include the right to a fair hearing, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that serious allegations be supported by substantial evidence.
When commands circumvent these safeguards—by sidelining NJP or court-martial in favor of a fast-tracked separation—the administrative separation board becomes the lone forum where a service member can defend their name and career. In such cases, it is essential that defense counsel recognize and preserve due process violations. LODs, when properly filed, not only place objections on the record but also serve as crucial documentation for review boards like the DRB and BCMR. An LOD can mean the difference between an unjust discharge going unchallenged and that injustice being reversed years later.
This case is a testament to the importance of knowledgeable counsel—attorneys who understand the complexities of military law, who know how to build a record for later review, and who are willing to zealously advocate even when the odds seem stacked. When the system falters, the boards of correction remain vital safeguards for justice—but only if the groundwork has been laid for them to act.
If you are facing adverse discharge action stemming from unsubstantiated allegations or flawed administrative proceedings, don’t face it alone. Our firm is committed to fighting for service members whose voices have been silenced. Contact us today to discuss how we can help restore your record—and your future.